TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon by the learned advocate is applicable on all fours in respect of Construction Services provided by the appellant. For the period after 01.06.2007, the demand invoking the extended period of limitation with respect to Works Contract Service cannot sustain and will require to be set aside - the appellant will be liable to pay service tax for the normal period of limitation calculated from the date of issue of the show-cause notice. However, for the same reasons no penalty will be imposable under section 78 ibid for the normal period. Demand with regard to Cleaning Services - HELD THAT:- Ld. Advocate has conceded the tax liability. We do not therefore interfere with the demand of tax and interest - the penalty under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er various provisions of law. In adjudication, the original authority vide Order dated 29.12.2010 confirmed proposals in the show-cause notice and also imposed penalties under section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order darted 30.11.2011 upheld the order of original authority. Hence this appeal. Today, when the matter came up for hearing on behalf of the appellant, the learned Advocate Ms. S. Sridevi made oral and written submissions, which are broadly summarized as under:- (i) For the period prior to 01.06.2007, the appellants were providing composite Construction Service including both labour and materials and hence the show-cause notice proposing demand under Commer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e other hand, the Ld. AR Shri S. Govindarajan reiterates the impugned order. He further submits that appellants had not filed returns nor they took registration and hence the extended period is very much invocable. 3. Heard both sides. 3. After hearing both sides, for the period 01.06.2007, the demand will not in any case sustain in the light of the decision in the case of M/s. Larsen Toubro Ltd., (supra). For the period after 01.06.2007, the ratio laid down by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of V. Chinnasamy 2 Ors., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy vide Final Order Nos.41460-41462/2018, dated 10.05.2018 relied upon by the learned advocate is applicable on all fours in respect of Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the show-cause notice. However, for the same reasons no penalty will be imposable under section 78 ibid for the normal period. Ordered accordingly. 4. Now coming to the demand with regard to Cleaning Services, Ld. Advocate has conceded the tax liability. We do not therefore interfere with the demand of tax and interest. For same reasons discussed herein above, we hold that the penalty under section 78 ibid on this score also is unjustified, which we hereby do. However, we do not interfere with the penalty imposed under section 77 ibid. 5. Appeal party allowed in the above terms with consequential reliefs, if any. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
